5 ms·

San Francisco almost had exactly that. The policy was reversed after about a week of outrage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/11/30/san-francisco-pol

by Glant 3y ago

San Francisco almost had exactly that. The policy was reversed after about a week of outrage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/11/30/san-francisco-police-robots-kill/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/11/30/san-francis...

soco 3y ago
The article, the people on SF board, and everybody else seems to confuse remote-controlled devices with AI-powered ones. To me the difference is essential: why I might agree to remote controlled devices carrying out the operator orders (I might), I definitely am very very, but very very very far from trusting an AI with carrying a weapon (I already don't trust humans that much).
- Glant 3y ago
  Imo it's an issue either way. I'm absolutely with you that AI shouldn't have guns, but I don't think police should have any remotely activated guns.
- dingledork69 3y ago
  I'm of the firm belief that if you want to inflict violence on someone there should be physical risk for those that want to inflict the violence. So that's a no to any kind of remote controlled murderbots.
  - oh_sigh 3y ago
    Usually people protecting the public from violence don't really want to commit the violence themselves. they probably wish they were having a boring normal old day instead of needing to confront an active shooter. So do you think the police were being lame by taking out Micah Xavier Johnson with a remote controlled vehicle, rather than breaching his position personally?
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      I'm sure that is often the case, and often not the case, judging by the glorification of violence and killing common with police today. It's important to differentiate being brave enough to put yourself in harm's way vs. glorifying violence. Policing requires the first one, not the second. Unfortunately, while the latter is seen often in officers, Uvalde showed us that the former may not be. and speaking for myself, yes, very much so, that domestic drone killing was a dark day for the country and a harbinger of things to come
      - oh_sigh 3y ago
        So it would be better for, say, another 5 cops to be killed trying to breach his hideout, rather than blowing him up with a robot - after he has already killed 5 cops and injured many more? I'll admit I can't really understand that logic.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        yes, 100%, it's better for cops to be brave and risk their lives to do their job when it's necessary (e.g. Uvalde, Micah), like they signed up to do given that Micah was cornered, they could have also waited, perhaps even negotiated (they did, after all, trick him by saying their suicide drone was actually carrying a phone to negotiate), but neither of those options makes a big cool boom or sates bloodlust anyways, any bully can pick up a gun and boss around non-threats while being paid handsomely and enjoying legal immunity for nearly anything they do it is far better for cops to do their jobs, even if they're scared, even if they die, than to set a precedent of extrajudicial domestic drone killing of suspects. that's why they get paid more than burger flippers. I honestly can't understand the opposite logic: that precedent is horrible
        oh_sigh 3y ago
        > risk their lives to do their job when it's necessary It wasn't necessary, because they had an alternative way to accomplish the goal. > like they signed up to do Cops don't sign up to risk their lives. They sign up to help police their community. They are sometimes called upon to risk their lives, but that doesn't mean they should risk their lives when alternatives are available. It's not an extrajudicial killing if the dude is actively murdering people from a window. Police, or really any random person, are well with the rule of law to kill that person without getting the okay from a judge.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Much of military technology is the art of maximizing damage potential while minimizing harm risk. This has been true from the era of mounted cavalry to remote operated drones.
    - soco 3y ago
      And now we are confusing army with police. I am fully aware that in the States the police gets more and more weaponized but still, I'm a firm believer they should not be the same.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        Oh, so you draw the line at domestic enforcement should require skin in the game and military power can use different rules. In that case: sure, I can see some advantage to return enforcement happen as a human-to-human interaction.

by Glant 3y ago

soco 3y ago

The article, the people on SF board, and everybody else seems to confuse remote-controlled devices with AI-powered ones. To me the difference is essential: why I might agree to remote controlled devices carrying out the operator orders (I might), I definitely am very very, but very very very far from trusting an AI with carrying a weapon (I already don't trust humans that much).

Glant 3y ago
Imo it's an issue either way. I'm absolutely with you that AI shouldn't have guns, but I don't think police should have any remotely activated guns.
dingledork69 3y ago
I'm of the firm belief that if you want to inflict violence on someone there should be physical risk for those that want to inflict the violence. So that's a no to any kind of remote controlled murderbots.
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  Usually people protecting the public from violence don't really want to commit the violence themselves. they probably wish they were having a boring normal old day instead of needing to confront an active shooter. So do you think the police were being lame by taking out Micah Xavier Johnson with a remote controlled vehicle, rather than breaching his position personally?
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    I'm sure that is often the case, and often not the case, judging by the glorification of violence and killing common with police today. It's important to differentiate being brave enough to put yourself in harm's way vs. glorifying violence. Policing requires the first one, not the second. Unfortunately, while the latter is seen often in officers, Uvalde showed us that the former may not be. and speaking for myself, yes, very much so, that domestic drone killing was a dark day for the country and a harbinger of things to come
    - oh_sigh 3y ago
      So it would be better for, say, another 5 cops to be killed trying to breach his hideout, rather than blowing him up with a robot - after he has already killed 5 cops and injured many more? I'll admit I can't really understand that logic.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        yes, 100%, it's better for cops to be brave and risk their lives to do their job when it's necessary (e.g. Uvalde, Micah), like they signed up to do given that Micah was cornered, they could have also waited, perhaps even negotiated (they did, after all, trick him by saying their suicide drone was actually carrying a phone to negotiate), but neither of those options makes a big cool boom or sates bloodlust anyways, any bully can pick up a gun and boss around non-threats while being paid handsomely and enjoying legal immunity for nearly anything they do it is far better for cops to do their jobs, even if they're scared, even if they die, than to set a precedent of extrajudicial domestic drone killing of suspects. that's why they get paid more than burger flippers. I honestly can't understand the opposite logic: that precedent is horrible
        oh_sigh 3y ago
        > risk their lives to do their job when it's necessary It wasn't necessary, because they had an alternative way to accomplish the goal. > like they signed up to do Cops don't sign up to risk their lives. They sign up to help police their community. They are sometimes called upon to risk their lives, but that doesn't mean they should risk their lives when alternatives are available. It's not an extrajudicial killing if the dude is actively murdering people from a window. Police, or really any random person, are well with the rule of law to kill that person without getting the okay from a judge.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Much of military technology is the art of maximizing damage potential while minimizing harm risk. This has been true from the era of mounted cavalry to remote operated drones.
  - soco 3y ago
    And now we are confusing army with police. I am fully aware that in the States the police gets more and more weaponized but still, I'm a firm believer they should not be the same.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      Oh, so you draw the line at domestic enforcement should require skin in the game and military power can use different rules. In that case: sure, I can see some advantage to return enforcement happen as a human-to-human interaction.